Psycho Child Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Hrmm' date=' maybe thieves should get to steal/pry 2 items of any type, so people don't exploit them by using non-rare weapons/shields...I still don't see a problem with thieves only being able to pry/steal 2 items though. A good thief can kill someone without prying more than 2 items...And besides, most good players will not be sleeping infront of anyone, even with the blackjack ability....you won't be knocking me out anytime soon, I promise you that.[/quote'] Unless a good thief steals your backpack full of stuff to prevent it...then waits till they can blackjack you, then does it...o wait you are blue now they can't do that anymore...nm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I've Killed for Less Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Hrmm' date=' maybe thieves should get to steal/pry 2 items of any type, so people don't exploit them by using non-rare weapons/shields...I still don't see a problem with thieves only being able to pry/steal 2 items though. A good thief can kill someone without prying more than 2 items...And besides, most good players will not be sleeping infront of anyone, even with the blackjack ability....you won't be knocking me out anytime soon, I promise you that.[/quote'] I will knock you out every 5 minutes on the minute. but thats beside the point. I dont think thieves should be limited to stealing/prying 2 things. I would in a normal blackjack sitting, usually take, (all backpacks/vials, both weapons/weapon shield, both neckpieces to plant talismans, and perhaps a light or piece of armor or 5) I really do not feel good about this for thieves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Child Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I will knock you out every 5 minutes on the minute. but thats beside the point. I dont think thieves should be limited to stealing/prying 2 things. I would in a normal blackjack sitting' date=' usually take, (all backpacks/vials, both weapons/weapon shield, both neckpieces to plant talismans, and perhaps a light or piece of armor or 5) I really do not feel good about this for thieves.[/quote'] This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Donkey Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 You can try to blackjack me if you want. But you'll have a fun time not doing it. I haven't been blackjacked in about a year now. And I don't make moderate players, how could I full loot your non-moderate players if I went and turned blue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Child Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Man up, go hardcore, and I'll rank that thief I got shelved. ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I've Killed for Less Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 You can try to blackjack me if you want. But you'll have a fun time not doing it. I haven't been blackjacked in about a year now. And I don't make moderate players' date=' how could I full loot your non-moderate players if I went and turned blue?[/quote'] Just messin anyways, not trying to flame battle or anything like that, I just am trying to point out that thieves rely heavily on the ability to weaken their opponents by prying and stealing, and I dont see how they could still be balanced with these changes being put into play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Donkey Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I'd never play a moderate, you can keep claiming I am one all you want. I'm sitting at 50 waiting for someone to finally get me, however I doubt it will be you especially playing a thief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi_Donkey Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 That wasn't aimed at you "I've killed for less", it was aimed at the other one that I already forget the name of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Child Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I'd never play a moderate' date=' you can keep claiming I am one all you want. I'm sitting at 50 waiting for someone to finally get me, however I doubt it will be you especially playing a thief.[/quote'] I like this guy. Time to get of my *** and pinn something then. See you in game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 i still think this was a terrible idea. 8-12 rares + 4 in inventory, and i can only take 2 of them, and i can't even touch their backpack? hrm, let me sit at your corpse and evaluate each item you have, and make a decision as to which 2 rares out of the 12 you have that i want to take. oh look you are already back at your corpse because i can't just type 'get all corpse' any more. i think they should be limited to 6 rares max, with backpacks and consumables open season. there's just nothing i like about this change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 i still think this was a terrible idea. 8-12 rares + 4 in inventory, and i can only take 2 of them, and i can't even touch their backpack? hrm, let me sit at your corpse and evaluate each item you have, and make a decision as to which 2 rares out of the 12 you have that i want to take. oh look you are already back at your corpse because i can't just type 'get all corpse' any more. i think they should be limited to 6 rares max, with backpacks and consumables open season. there's just nothing i like about this change. This would defeat the entire purpose. This system SHOULD be completely unnecessary. So people who dislike it have no one to blame but themselves. This community proved themselves completely unable to play the game in a fair and decent manner. Full looting and multikilling newbies is stupid and I am glad they now get some protection. I just wish it wasn't necessary. I also wonder if full loots will become more acceptable amongst hardcore players. I hope not, but who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I've Killed for Less Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 This would defeat the entire purpose. This system SHOULD be completely unnecessary. So people who dislike it have no one to blame but themselves. This community proved themselves completely unable to play the game in a fair and decent manner. Full looting and multikilling newbies is stupid and I am glad they now get some protection. I just wish it wasn't necessary. I also wonder if full loots will become more acceptable amongst hardcore players. I hope not, but who knows? I hate this change already. Cant take Backpacks either? WTF?!?!? Also, how are we supposed to know who is a newbie when we are smashing their head open? Its not like IG you can say "hey before i kill you and loot you, are you a newbie?" I dunno, I learned this game the hard way, by dying a lot. (which I still do a lot of) but I wouldnt want it any other way. I think this change is going to be the worst thing to ever happen to the game, but thats just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 This community proved themselves completely unable to play the game in a fair and decent manner. 'fair and decent' in this case means 'coddling to people who are unable to run or otherwise survive and are unwilling to learn'. i don't know about other folks, but i've never died and gone to blame the guy who killed and full looted me for 'being unfair and indecent'. i blame myself for being stupid or making a mistake (or blaming bellsouth for having crappy service). a full loot is a well earned prize for victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I do not think full looting is the problem honestly. I will full looted a hated enemy if I have to. What I hate is the fact that full looting has become completely 100% the standard. I was full loot/sacced by a pinned decked char while wearing mithril. I mean come the hell on, is that even remotely close to necessary? I did not even know the guy before HE attacked me. And I am rewarded with a full loot/sac of mithril armor? Come on people, there is no class at all in that. You want to grind people to nothing so they do not bother you anymore, well what the hell are you gonna do when there is noone left to bother you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
English lad Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 'fair and decent' in this case means 'coddling to people who are unable to run or otherwise survive and are unwilling to learn'. i don't know about other folks, but i've never died and gone to blame the guy who killed and full looted me for 'being unfair and indecent'. i blame myself for being stupid or making a mistake (or blaming bellsouth for having crappy service). a full loot is a well earned prize for victory. For a long while i thought the same as you inscribed - i liked the fact that you had to work very hard to get anywhere decent, that it was going to be a long process. However I came to a realisation, this mud was dying, was finding it very hard to attract new players in an increasingly competitive market, and was having an even harder time retraining newbies. Should, would and could don't really mean anything when put up against harsh realities. Should newbies just be able to take a full loot as a learning experience? Maybe, but they won't, and when it comes down to it, that's what really matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldskooler Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Valek, I am unsure where you get your information. In zhokril's post here it didn't say anything about cabal standards or attacking cabals. Is there an IG changes note posted that is different? I haven't been on yet today. Also, I will be playing with the big boys and girls, thank you. Now hopefully this doesn't mean sacrificing everyone's crap, just doing what we're doing now. If it does, then an aye for an aye a sac for a sac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H&R Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Valek' date=' I am unsure where you get your information. In zhokril's post here it didn't say anything about cabal standards or attacking cabals. Is there an IG changes note posted that is different? I haven't been on yet today. Also, I will be playing with the big boys and girls, thank you. Now hopefully this doesn't mean sacrificing everyone's crap, just doing what we're doing now. If it does, then an aye for an aye a sac for a sac.[/quote'] From "help moderate" I believe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhokril Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 These are covered in the help files, but... Any Moderate player that attacks a cabal altar will lose all protections immediately.Caballed characters can re-attack Moderates who are vendetta-ed enemies after a kill with no timer, BUT they cannot loot again until after the regular (approx. 1 IG week) period is up. Thieves - They can still steal/pry 2 items every so often in addition to 2 rares they can take for a kill. This is only fair given the restrictions placed on everyone else. We will, of course, monitor the situation and make changes if we think it is necessary. Feel free to give us feedback after you have actually tried it. However, this is what we felt was a good starting point. If you all will evaluate your posts, you will realize that the overwhelming mentality is the one that this system is designed to negate. This system is not about how veteran player gain minor disadvantages. This system is about making it fun, and giving a chance to, everyone who wants to play the game. If you cannot willingly sacrifice whatever, in the scheme of things, minor disadvantages you will gain from this system in the name of becoming more "non-vet friendly", in my opinion, it is merely a reinforcement that this change was needed. You (a generic you) are also blatantly discarding the point where a Moderate character is at an innately massive disadvantage vs. a Ruthless player in the first place. You are only focusing on what they gain, without thinking about what they lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 If you all will evaluate your posts, you will realize that the overwhelming mentality is the one that this system is designed to negate. This system is not about how veteran player gain minor disadvantages. This system is about making it fun, and giving a chance to, everyone who wants to play the game. If you cannot willingly sacrifice whatever, in the scheme of things, minor disadvantages you will gain from this system in the name of becoming more "non-vet friendly", in my opinion, it is merely a reinforcement that this change was needed. You (a generic you) are also blatantly discarding the point where a Moderate character is at an innately massive disadvantage vs. a Ruthless player in the first place. You are only focusing on what they gain, without thinking about what they lose. ****, yes! AMEN! A-FREAKIN'-MEN! Tell it like it is, Brother Zhokril! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRins Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Amen Zhokril...also, you IMMs might want to modify the Ruthless help file to say that only the ruthless will receive the ranks of TRUSTED, elder or leader in a cabal...it currently only says elder or leader, which may confuse someone who only reads help ruthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deykari Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I'm all for this system. Dey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Amen Zhokril...also' date=' you IMMs might want to modify the Ruthless help file to say that only the ruthless will receive the ranks of TRUSTED, elder or leader in a cabal...it currently only says elder or leader, which may confuse someone who only reads help ruthless.[/quote'] Nah...we just eliminated Trusted because, frankly, I don't trust any of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Nah...we just eliminated Trusted because' date=' frankly, I don't trust any of you.[/quote'] Why don't you step into my rectory and we'll discuss this "trust" issue of yours..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 If you all will evaluate your posts, you will realize that the overwhelming mentality is the one that this system is designed to negate. This system is not about how veteran player gain minor disadvantages. This system is about making it fun, and giving a chance to, everyone who wants to play the game. If you cannot willingly sacrifice whatever, in the scheme of things, minor disadvantages you will gain from this system in the name of becoming more "non-vet friendly", in my opinion, it is merely a reinforcement that this change was needed. You (a generic you) are also blatantly discarding the point where a Moderate character is at an innately massive disadvantage vs. a Ruthless player in the first place. You are only focusing on what they gain, without thinking about what they lose. I do not think it is possible to give a more cogent, succinct post on this system than this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNewGuy Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Zhokril, and other imms, MAJOR props for the hard work you've put in! You guys rock! Evaluation time! Of course things will need to be ajusted, and I trust after some trying out we can tweak this into awesomeness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.